Same-sex-marriage foes target gay judge's ruling

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Same-sex-marriage foes target gay judge's ruling
17
Tue, 06-14-2011 - 12:54pm
Same-sex-marriage foes target gay judge's ruling

A federal judge appeared reluctant Monday to set aside last year's ruling striking down California's ban on same-sex marriage because of the trial judge's same-sex relationship, but did not dismiss outright the bias arguments raised by foes of gay nuptials.

By Howard Mintz

 nwtreehugger  

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
FYI, I keep an open mind & question judge's decisions as well. It's because of that I feel that he is not being prejudicial. Gender preference, or even gender, is also unimportant to me.

However, after researching this particular case, I do not feel that this judge is a 'bad judge'. To me, his reasoning was strong & well thought out. I agree, he may have 'worked harder' to be sure it was well laid out because he's gay...but I don't see any prejudice in his decision at all.

IMHO, it is a gay rights issue much more than just an appeal. However, I'm hoping that this will be another punch in the stomach to the Prop 8 people.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009

nwtreehugger wrote:
Unfortunately, judges are human.... As for whether or not he expressed a wish to marry, I can only go by what has been reported. I don't know him so I can't be sure. However, his decision was well laid out & seemed to be very clear of any bias.

Yep, judges are human.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Unfortunately, judges are human.... As for whether or not he expressed a wish to marry, I can only go by what has been reported. I don't know him so I can't be sure. However, his decision was well laid out & seemed to be very clear of any bias.

And I can see it being a judicial question if, like I stated above, his decision hadn't been so well presented. By questioning an excellent job like that, it became a 'gay rights' question...it's obvious that the only reason the Prop 8 people filed this suit was because the judge in question was gay.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009
That's good to hear. It was a bad law.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Walker's ruling was laid out so incredibly well, explaining exactly why and how he came to his ruling, that it would be darn near impossible for anyone to tear it apart. It simply doesn't matter whether who could have "profited" from his ruling or not. He showed that he was unbiased and fair and based his rulings on the law.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009
libraone wrote:

Would those claiming judicial bias be filing if not for their own biases?

Of course they do.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000

Would those claiming judicial bias be filing if not for their own biases?

"This whole thing isn't about gay rights, imo.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009

Yes, it is possible for judges to be able to 'profit' from a case, and the law requires them to recuse themselves.

And as to your last paragraph, yes, it's possible there are other circumstances. That's why I put in the disclaimer.

Are you positive this man never expressed a wish to marry? I would think the majority of men at one point or another in their lives, wish to marry.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Exactly.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Couldn't it very possible for a straight judge to 'profit' from his ruling? Especially if, because of his religious beliefs, he did not support same-sex marriage?

As for my examples...I could see some circumstances where the judge could 'profit' in some way but they were just examples that I felt were equal to the accusations against this particular judge. He never expressed a wish to marry (smart man!! ;) . And, if a straight judge with religious convictions (whether stated or not) could be acceptable....

 nwtreehugger  

Pages